Constitutionality of Ohio's new dangerous animal law challenged in court

Wild animal owners are challenging a new Ohio law that regulates wild animal ownership.Associated Press file

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A wild animal owner said in federal court on Monday that the state’s new requirements for wild animal ownership would threaten the lives of her older animals.

Cyndi Huntsman, who owns a center in Massillon with 49 animals, is among a handful of owners who are challenging as unconstitutional Ohio’s new law regulating dangerous and wild animals.

The trial began Monday in U.S. District Judge George C. Smith’s courtroom and is scheduled to continue today.

Huntsman testified that a requirement to insert tracking microchips threatens the well being of some older animals. The animals would have to be sedated for the procedure, she said.

The sedation is "a death sentence for them," Huntsman testified. "I’m not willing to do that. And I’ll fight as long as I have to."

Huntsman and other wild animal owners filed a lawsuit in November to try to overturn the state’s new law that regulates the ownership of dangerous wild animals. The law was passed earlier this year after a Zanesville man released more than 50 animals, including bears and tigers, and then committed suicide. Authorities hunted down the animals and killed most of them.

The law bans ownership of certain dangerous animals as of January 2014. The deadline for owners to register their animals, with microchips, was Nov. 5, 2012. Further steps are required to maintain possession of the animals in 2014 and beyond.

The animal owners say the law is unconstitutional because it violates their property ownership rights. Under the new law, the state can seize an animal if it is not properly registered with a microchip.

Lawyers for the state argue that the microchipping procedure is reasonable and the law is necessary to protect the public.

"There’s significant evidence that microchipping is no more dangerous than vaccinating dogs and cats," Ralph Henry, deputy director of litigation for the Humane Society of the United States, said in an interview.

The Humane Society has joined the state in defending the new law.

Henry said other courts have upheld the constitutionality of tracking mechanisms such as microchips.

In addition to her concern over the animals’ safety, Huntsman said the new law would hurt her business, Stump Hill Farm.

The farm is a nonprofit organization that strives to educate the public about rare and endangered animals, according to court records. The farm, which is federally licensed, cares for 49 animals, including white tigers, lemurs, leopards and baboons.

"Under the ban we no longer can do programs," she said. "We cannot exhibit at the farm under the new ban."

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.